Saturday, January 10, 2009

Love and marriage, love and marriageGo together like a horse and carriageThis I tell you brotherYou cant have one without the other

Love and marriage, love and marriageIts an institute you cant disparageAsk the local gentryAnd they will say its elementary

Try, try, try to separate themIts an illusionTry, try, try, and you will only comeTo this conclusion

Love and marriage, love and marriageGo together like a horse and carriageDad was told by motherYou cant have one without the other

Today as we protest the hate-filled legislation, "The Defense of Marriage Act", I couldn't help but think about this song.

Our opponents tell us that we want to destroy the institution of marriage, but our love is strong, our lives are real, and it really is "elementary" when you think about it. Two people who love one another should be able to start a family and have all the same protections under the law as anyone else. Our fight seeks to strengthen the bonds between "love and marriage", and after all "it's an institute you cant disparage" no matter how much our opponents "try to separate them, it is an illusion" based on lies and bigotry.

3 comments:

Are you seriously supporting this love-and-marriage stuff?!When I read this lyric, the first think that came into my mind was the trilogy love-marriage-children which pressures asexual people. Especially, it's suffered by aromantic asexual girls from their mothers.Moreover, this horse-and-carriage comparison is easy to refute: you may ride a horse without a carriage, and a carriage may be pulled by a donkey or a mule.

Well this would not apply to an a-romantic asexual, but there are many non-asexual and romantic asexuals out there to whom it can apply. I didn't see the trilogy in it, but even so many of do like the idea of marriage and having a family with kids.

I wouldn't get too caught up in the horse and carriage, first off im vegan so I am against horse drawn carriages, the point being made here is that queer love should be recognized under the law.

The trilogy is implicit, but very present. If your mother starts talking about love and follows about marriage, you know in advance that she will finish talking about children.I understood at the very beginning what you mean, because I follow your blog and know your position about asexuality and same-sex marriage, but the pressure to match invoked by this love-and-marriage topic is a minor issue. The point which really bothers me is the love-and-marriage(-and-children) pack, the idea of being a blocked pack, although your today argument relies on it. I think that any blocked pack is suspicious of being artificial.